Saturday, January 30, 2010

thoughts on God [unfinished]

A couple of weeks ago, I finished reading the book god is not great by Christopher Hitchens. Out of its reading, I have concluded this: It is near impossible to discuss faith with a person who holds strictly to science and reason. I imagine such a conversation going something like this:

"Well, the Bible says..."
"I don't believe in the Bible."
"Then Jesus said..."
"Jesus never existed."
"Okay. Then faith tells me..."
"Faith? Bah!"

Pointless. Absolutely pointless. The most contested area between the atheist and the theist revolves around the reality of the metaphysical, and the existence of God. Atheists, if they hold to a strict naturalist worldview, will never consider whether or not anything exists outside of the quantifiable physical world in which we live and move. In my estimation (and experience), this view is extremely limiting and potentially dangerous. Case in point:

Several years ago I was part of a team leading a group of teenagers through the streets of the Downtown East Side of Vancouver. In an unplanned moment, due to a need to fill some time, we decided to do a "prayer walk" along East Hastings, starting from Main and walking West towards Pigeon Park. I ended up with a group of about 10 teens, and we decided to simply walk East to West on the North Side of Hastings, praying silently as we went. It wasn't long before we were stopped by a woman in the most unusual way. All I remember of the words in her half-minute montage, and only because they were directed at me, were "You son of Satan!"

Let me clarify. As a group, we were not loudly stating our prayers--we were not obvious in our actions as we walked. And before that day, and since that day I have walked along East Hastings a number of times and never been stopped, approached, or yelled at. This has become a moment in my mind that clarifies, solidifies and proves to me the existence of a world outside of the physical, quantifiable realm. It may not be enough for the greatest of skeptics, and I will accept that. Hitchens may suggest that this woman simply had a mental issue, which is medically speaking very likely. But then, my question is, Why at that moment? Why did this woman decide in that moment to spew her words towards us, as we walked and prayed? And more importantly, Why those words? Of the wide variety of expletives available in the English language, why did she choose to get the devil involved? The worldview I adhere to suggests that we are living in both a physical and spiritual world, where a battle continues to rage between God and Satan--a world that we can encounter from time to time.

You may ask, Why do I not experience this more often? To which, I can only restate what I have written about before: the distractions of the culture we live in greatly diminishes my ability to recognize God in the everyday. And perhaps, that is the struggle of atheism. In a world where reason and science rule, in which humanity is the apex of evolution, it is a wonder that one would look beyond himself and the physical world in which he exists. If one does not expect to know anything outside of himself and the physical world, how can he experience anything else? Without the experience of God, modern society would simply turn into the narcissistic, ego-centric, self-gratifying, greedy, and sexually confused kind of world we are all a part of. The distinctiveness of the Christian faith should point foremost to a Creator God through whom all things live, move and have their being.

Of course, this unfinished thought did not touch at all on many of Hitchen's tiresome, sarcastic and anti-religious tirades concerning the historicity of religious wars and the unfounded proofs concerning the Bible (valid points which I hope to get to eventually). But without at least a hint of the existence of God, there would be no point in bringing that up. Perhaps in a future post...

4 comments:

Matthew Kok said...

Comments from Facebook:

January 30 at 8:32pm

D.H.
: I find your Spiritual Moment to be remarkably mundane, and I have to say I've heard far more "mystical" stories from religious people. Hell, I think I used to tell some of them. I don't say this to insult you, but in the interest of honesty, this is pretty tame and unremarkable. The prattling of an mentally unbalanced woman that you associate with "spiritual warfare" because, you were looking for this kind of moment, ready to perceive it at the drop of a hat, frankly. This has to do with your own mental state. As for the choice of words the woman used, "Son of Satan", quite basically we are all inundated with religious (Christian) teachings, symbolism and stories throughout our lives in the West, and this isn't limited to content coming from religious sources, our literature and media also use these ideas ad nauseum. Sorry Matty, but I really feel like you're stretching here.

I can sympathize with your disdain for Hitchens, the guy is a first rate asshole, and assholes are always the worst when they're right and they know it. The bottom line is, his rationale is hard to debate.

January 30 at 11:34pm

D.H.
: ps. If you want to read a truly challenging book (I've read God is Not Great as well) check out Sam Harris, "The End of Faith" is good but "Letter to a Christian Nation" is short and sweet, and is a very concise summation of the inherent problems with religion and faith.


January 31 at 7:07pm

Matthew Kok
: D, I am not surprised that you have heard (and maybe even witnessed) far more remarkable spiritual stories, so I am not insulted...mine is quite tame in comparison to many that I, too, have heard.

To be honest about my mundane experience, however, the significance of that moment in terms of the spiritual realm did not dawn on me until a while later. I was definitely not seeking any "revelation" of spiritual warfare in that moment, and was actually quite taken aback by my encounter with this woman.

You and I view the world through a different lens, so of course experiences like these will resonate differently with our psyche. It's not that I "choose" to view this experience through a Christian worldview, I honestly cannot explain it outside of this view. I have heard too many first-hand accounts of spiritual warfare similar and even more profound than my own, and no amount of science (up to this point at least) will be able to explain it in a better light than this, without stretching even the ever-changing science of psychology.

My impression of Hitchens (whose arguments are difficult to debate without delving into Scripture) is that he, like many of the Christians whose horrendous actions he rightly rips apart, misinterprets the root of Scripture, specifically the purpose and life of Christ. That is a human tendency, and that is why I cannot accept humanism in its purest sense.

I do have "the end of faith," and will get around to it in time, but I'll definitely look up the letter. Thanks...

Matthew Kok said...

Comments from Facebook:

February 1 at 11:44pm

D.H.
: It may be that you did not see significance in this experience until a later time, but this doesn't really denote validity. Actually it's less credible that after you had time to think about it you added spiritual context to it. You are asserting that this woman approaching you and yelling "son of Satan" at you was in some way connected to an unseen spiritual plane. What is your evidence for this? You say that you can not explain this in any way other than a Christian one, except that it somehow vaguely has some spiritual significance, but for this you provide what evidence? None. Or at best, your "feelings" about it. Feelings which are influenced by what? The lens you spoke of, the one through which you view and interpret reality.

As for the experiences of others, well it may be that science cannot explain the phenomenon witnessed by various people, except to say quite obviously that people "see" a lot of these things when they truly wish to. They find coincidences among the mundane details of their daily lives and attribute great significance to them. They wish to see the hand of God, so they do. I've heard hundreds of these stories, usually from someone who knows someone, but they have come out of my own mouth as well. When I was in YWAM I traveled to India and prayed for people who came to the performances we put on (huge shows w/ body builders, skaters, dancers and such). Literally thousands of Indian people, poor as dirt and many afflicted with maladies came forward to be prayed for, and I wanted to see God heal someone so badly. So I imagined he did. Later when I came back to Canada I told people the amazing stories of God making warts disappear from a man's face before my eyes! Of seeing a man with a stunted leg suddenly walking with even legs! I knew the truth inside though and can admit it these many years later; I've never seen a miracle, no one was healed in front of me, not of anything seen or unseen. Ever. Think about this: Why is it that when "healings" occur in churches it's always for something internal? Does God hate War Amps?

Hitchens may misunderstand the roots of scripture or the purpose of Christ's life (though I'd say he raises some pretty pertinent questions about the validity of the Bible), am I to take it that you understand these things? The true purpose of Christ? Which interpretation of things is the most correct? Which denomination has it right? Or wrong for that matter? Or which individual has perceived these writings in just the right way? Against what do we measure that which has such little actual evidence? Lastly, why is it valuable to believe ardently in things for which you have no substantive evidence? Certainty is arrogant, doubt is humble.

Matthew Kok said...

Comments from Facebook:

February 7 at 8:42pm

Matthew Kok
: I really think the idea of stretching one's experiences to fit their worldview is skewed, though. What about those who have no understanding of Christ, but through personal experiences are drawn to him? Of Muslims who know of Jesus, but do not believe in him until they experience a vision or dream of him? Should these experiences be denied for lack of humanly quantifiable, measurable evidence? Who sets the standard for which evidences are valid and which are not? And why is that standard superior?

Is it not arrogant for those of reason to deny the experiences of something outside of the physical realm in which they limit themselves to? Is it not arrogant of them to believe that everything they seek an answer for can only be found through human understanding? Science is not immune from arrogant certainty, because it cannot doubt what it does not believe exists in the first place. What I mean to ask is, Why is it valuable to believe ardently in what can only be proven from substantive evidence?

What you witnessed in India and later experienced sounds much like what you suggest occurred to me. For me, an experience (a screaming woman) which, at a later date, was verified from my lens of reality (biblical worldview). For you, an experience (a healing), which was later denied from your lens of reality (antitheism). Again, our worldviews are at odds with each other.

Concerning denominations and interpretations, I have to go back to our human tendency towards self-interest. Concerning the true purpose of Christ, I would like to believe that, as a foundation, most Bible-believing churches mutually agree in Christ as both God and man who was a perfect sacrifice for humanity, taking on God's wrath for our sake. ...you know the story.

Because I know that this discussion will not lead anywhere productive for either of us, I leave you with the last word.

Matthew Kok said...

Comments from Facebook:

February 8 at 11:35pm

D.H.
: *sigh* Unfortunately it seems the one thing we will be able to agree on, is that our discussion will most likely alter nothing about the way the other thinks.

While many people who are without faith can be arrogant, including Scientists, Science itself isn't. Science is simply the objective study of something through controlled testing which is later reviewed by ones peers (don't think that this is some backslapping buddy club). The entire point of Science is objective study. If you can't see why this is valuable, more valuable by far than arbitrarily believing in unsubstantiated mythology, well than... There is no appealing to religious people for reason, which to me is an incredibly depressing and frightening thought.

It's true that I later decided that what I experienced in India was false, but the truth is that I knew it to be so even while I was relating these things, I can recall the pangs of guilt inside while I shared these false miracles with others. And I knew how these stories were spread, not just my own but those of others as well. Lies. Lies that we wanted to believe in so badly that we allowed our minds to deceive us.

I wish I could say it was an enjoyable chat, but this whole thing has left me feeling pretty unsatisfied and frustrated. Take care of yourself, Matt. Maybe we'll speak again soon, maybe we'll both have some new insight to offer, but I'm not holding my breath.